Society & Welfare
Social Legislation and Human Rights
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Laws Against Social Evils
Article 17, the PCR Act 1955, the SC/ST Atrocities Act 1989 with its 2015 and 2018 amendments, key cases and Chhattisgarh's anti-Tonahi law of 2005.
Prerequisites
- Human Rights, NHRC and SHRC — the broader rights framework these laws put into effect.
- Right to Equality and Freedom — Arts 15, 16 and 17 (abolition of untouchability).
- Sociology Concepts — caste, social stratification and social change.
The Hook: “Manakhe-Manakhe Ek Samaan”
Connect
Two centuries ago, Guru Ghasidas (गुरु घासीदास) of Giraudpuri taught the people of Chhattisgarh “मनखे-मनखे एक समान” (“every human being is equal”) and founded the Satnami panth against caste discrimination. The Constitution put that idea into Article 17 in 1950. Yet in the 1980s Parliament found that abolishing untouchability on paper had not stopped Dalits and Adivasis from being humiliated, beaten, boycotted or driven off their land.
Why was an ordinary criminal law not enough, and why did a 2018 Supreme Court judgment on this Act lead to nationwide protests and a quick amendment? This page answers that, and also covers Chhattisgarh’s own law against branding women as tonahi (टोनही, “witch”).
Why it matters: GS-V Mains asks about social legislation “as an instrument of social change”. The Atrocities Act, its amendments and the Mahajan/Prithvi Raj Chauhan judgments are standard material for both short and long answers.
The Constitutional Base
| Provision | Content |
|---|---|
| Art 15(2), 15(4) | No discrimination in access to shops, wells, tanks; special provisions for SCs and STs |
| Art 17 | “Untouchability” is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden; enforcing any disability arising from it is an offence punishable by law |
| Art 35 | Only Parliament can make laws prescribing punishment for acts declared offences under Part III (so Art 17 offences are a central law) |
| Art 46 | DPSP: promote educational and economic interests of SCs, STs and weaker sections and protect them from social injustice and exploitation |
| Art 338 / 338A | National Commission for Scheduled Castes / for Scheduled Tribes (separate bodies since the 89th Amendment, 2003) — constitutional bodies |
Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (नागरिक अधिकार संरक्षण अधिनियम)
| Point | Detail |
|---|---|
| Original name | Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 |
| Renamed | Protection of Civil Rights (PCR) Act by an amendment in 1976, which also made penalties stricter |
| Covers | Enforcing religious disabilities (entry to temples), social disabilities (shops, restaurants, wells, water sources, cremation grounds, roads), refusing admission to hospitals or educational institutions, refusing to sell goods or render services, insulting a person on the ground of untouchability |
| Punishment | First offence: imprisonment of at least one month and up to six months, plus a fine; heavier for repeat offences |
| Other features | Offences are cognizable; a person convicted can be disqualified from contesting elections; collective fines on an area; public servants who wilfully neglect investigation are punishable as abettors |
Why it fell short: low penalties, few convictions, and it dealt with “untouchability” practices, not with violence: murder, rape, arson, land grabbing and parading people naked continued. That gap produced the 1989 Act.
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (अनुसूचित जाति और अनुसूचित जनजाति (अत्याचार निवारण) अधिनियम)
| Point | Detail |
|---|---|
| Enacted | 1989; in force from 30 January 1990; Rules in 1995 (fix relief amounts for victims) |
| Applies to | Offences by a person who is not an SC or ST against a member of an SC or ST |
| “Atrocity” | An offence listed in Section 3: forcing inedible or obnoxious substances, dumping excreta, parading naked, wrongful occupation of land, forced or bonded labour, preventing voting, false cases, insulting with intent to humiliate in public view, outraging modesty of an SC/ST woman, fouling water sources, denying passage to public places, forcing out of a house or village, etc. |
| Punishment | Most Section 3(1) offences: 6 months to 5 years with fine. Giving false evidence that leads to an innocent SC/ST person’s execution: death may be imposed. Committing an IPC (now BNS) offence punishable with 10 years or more against an SC/ST person: life imprisonment |
| Public servants | A non-SC/ST public servant who wilfully neglects duties under the Act: 6 months to 1 year (Sec 4) |
| Special Courts | A Court of Session in each district as a Special Court (Sec 14) |
| Externment | A person likely to commit an atrocity in a Scheduled Area or tribal area can be removed from the area (Sec 10) |
| Anticipatory bail barred | Section 18: the anticipatory bail provision (Sec 438 CrPC, now Sec 482 BNSS) does not apply |
| Relief | Compensation, rehabilitation, travel and maintenance for victims and witnesses under the 1995 Rules |
| Duty of Government | Identify atrocity-prone areas, set up special police cells and committees (Sec 21) |
The 2015 Amendment (in force 26 January 2016)
- New offences added, including tonsuring the head or moustache, garlanding with footwear, denying access to irrigation, forcing to dispose of carcasses or do manual scavenging, dedicating an SC/ST woman as a devadasi, abusing by caste name in public view, social or economic boycott, preventing filing of nomination, and certain acts of sexual exploitation.
- Exclusive Special Courts and Exclusive Special Public Prosecutors; these courts can take direct cognizance.
- Charge sheet to be filed within 60 days; trial to be completed, as far as possible, within two months of the charge sheet.
- New Chapter IV-A: Rights of Victims and Witnesses — a right to be heard at bail and trial, protection, and expenses.
- Presumption: if the accused was acquainted with the victim or family, the court presumes the accused knew the victim’s caste or tribal identity.
- Defined “wilful negligence” of public servants.
- Appeals against bail orders and judgments lie to the High Court within 90 days (Sec 14A).
2018: The Mahajan Judgment and the Amendment
graph TD
A["20 Mar 2018
Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra
SC: preliminary inquiry before FIR,
approval before arrest,
anticipatory bail if no prima facie case"] --> B["April 2018
Nationwide protests (Bharat Bandh)"]
B --> C["Aug 2018
SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act, 2018
inserts Section 18A"]
C --> D["1 Oct 2019
Review: 3-judge bench recalls
the Mahajan directions"]
D --> E["10 Feb 2020
Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India
Section 18A upheld"]Section 18A (inserted in 2018):
- No preliminary inquiry is required before registering an FIR.
- No prior approval is needed before arresting an accused.
- The bar on anticipatory bail applies notwithstanding any judgment or court order.
In Prithvi Raj Chauhan (2020), the Supreme Court upheld Section 18A, but noted that courts can still grant anticipatory bail or quash proceedings in the rare case where the complaint does not make out a prima facie case.
Evaluation (Mains)
| Achievements | Concerns |
|---|---|
| Recognises caste violence as a distinct, aggravated crime | Low conviction rates and long pendency in Special Courts |
| Victim-centric: relief, rehabilitation, rights of witnesses (2015) | Under-registration: police reluctance, social pressure, “compromises” |
| Deterrence through no anticipatory bail and Special Courts | Allegations of misuse, which led to the 2018 Mahajan directions |
| Public-servant accountability (Sec 4) | Many districts lack Exclusive Special Courts and trained prosecutors |
| Covers economic violence: land grabs, boycott, bonded labour | Social boycott and subtle discrimination are hard to prove |
Way forward: more Exclusive Special Courts, time-bound investigation, witness protection, sensitisation of police, social audits of relief payments, and community awareness. Constitutional morality (Ambedkar) has to grow alongside legal deterrence.
Chhattisgarh Angle: The Tonahi Pratadna Nivaran Adhiniyam, 2005
छत्तीसगढ़ टोनही प्रताड़ना निवारण अधिनियम, 2005
Problem: in parts of rural Chhattisgarh, a woman (often a widow, elderly, poor, or one with land a relative wants) is accused of being a tonahi (witch) after a child’s illness, a death or a crop failure, and is then beaten, paraded, forced out of the village or killed. A baiga or ojha (traditional healer) often “identifies” her.
The law (2005):
- Identifying any person as a tonahi by words, signs or any other means: rigorous imprisonment up to 3 years and fine (Sec 4).
- Physical or mental harassment of a person so identified is a separate, more serious offence (Sec 5).
- A baiga/ojha who claims to “cure” or control a tonahi by jhar-phook, totka or tantra-mantra is also punishable.
Mains use: a good example of state legislation against a social evil rooted in superstition and gender inequality. Law alone is not enough: awareness, health services in villages (so illness is not blamed on witchcraft), women’s land rights and self-help groups matter just as much. Several other states (for example Jharkhand and Odisha) have similar anti-witch-hunting laws.
Other points for a Chhattisgarh answer:
- A large share of the state’s population is Scheduled Tribe (about 30.6%, Census 2011) and about 12.8% is Scheduled Caste (Census 2011), so atrocity and land-alienation protections matter here. See Tribes of Chhattisgarh.
- Fifth Schedule areas, the PESA Act, 1996 and the Forest Rights Act, 2006 protect tribal land and resources from alienation, which the Atrocities Act also criminalises (wrongful occupation of land).
- The Satnami reform tradition of Guru Ghasidas is the state’s own historical answer to untouchability.
Memory Tricks
Timeline: '55–76–89–2015–18–2020'
1955 Untouchability Offences Act → 1976 renamed PCR → 1989 Atrocities Act → 2015 amendment (new offences, Exclusive Courts, victims’ rights; in force 2016) → 2018 Mahajan + Sec 18A → 2020 Prithvi Raj Chauhan upholds 18A.
2015 amendment: '60-2-90'
Charge sheet in 60 days · trial in 2 months · appeal in 90 days.
Don’t Confuse
| This | vs | That |
|---|---|---|
| PCR Act 1955: untouchability practices (temples, wells, shops) | vs | PoA Act 1989: violence, humiliation, land grabs, boycott (“atrocities”) |
| Sec 18: anticipatory bail barred (original Act) | vs | Sec 18A: no preliminary inquiry, no prior approval for arrest (2018) |
| Mahajan (2018): diluted the Act’s procedure | vs | Prithvi Raj Chauhan (2020): upheld the 2018 amendment |
| NCSC / NCST: constitutional (Arts 338, 338A) | vs | NHRC: statutory (1993 Act) |
| Art 17: abolishes untouchability | vs | Art 15(2): no discrimination in access to public places |
Common Mistakes
MCQ traps
- “The PCR Act was enacted in 1976.” False. It was enacted in 1955 as the Untouchability (Offences) Act and renamed in 1976.
- “The Atrocities Act applies when the accused is also an SC or ST.” False. It covers offences by persons who are not SC or ST.
- “The Supreme Court struck down Section 18A.” False. It upheld it in Prithvi Raj Chauhan (2020).
- “Any insult to an SC person is an atrocity.” Not quite. Intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate must occur in a place within public view.
- “Article 17 defines untouchability.” False. The Constitution does not define the term; courts read it in its historical sense of caste-based practices.
Practice
All questions below are original practice questions written in CGPSC style. They are not previous-year questions.
Level 1: Foundation
- The Protection of Civil Rights Act was originally enacted in 1955 under the name ______.
- Section ______ of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was inserted in 2018 to remove the requirement of a preliminary inquiry before an FIR.
- The Chhattisgarh law against witch-branding is called the ______, 2005.
Answers
- Untouchability (Offences) Act.
- 18A.
- Chhattisgarh Tonahi Pratadna Nivaran Adhiniyam.
Level 2: Prelims-style MCQs
Q1. Consider the following statements about the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015:
- It provided for Exclusive Special Courts that can take direct cognizance of offences.
- It added a chapter on the rights of victims and witnesses.
- It allowed anticipatory bail for public servants accused under the Act.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- (a) 1 only
- (b) 1 and 2 only
- (c) 2 and 3 only
- (d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer and explanation
(b) 1 and 2 only. The 2015 amendment created Exclusive Special Courts with power of direct cognizance and inserted Chapter IV-A on the rights of victims and witnesses. It did not allow anticipatory bail; Section 18 continues to bar it, and Section 18A (2018) reinforced the bar.
Q2. Match List I (event) with List II (year):
| List I | List II |
|---|---|
| A. Untouchability (Offences) Act | 1. 1989 |
| B. Renaming as the Protection of Civil Rights Act | 2. 2020 |
| C. SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act | 3. 1955 |
| D. Prithvi Raj Chauhan judgment upholding Sec 18A | 4. 1976 |
- (a) A-3, B-1, C-4, D-2
- (b) A-3, B-4, C-1, D-2
- (c) A-4, B-3, C-1, D-2
- (d) A-3, B-4, C-2, D-1
Answer and explanation
(b) A-3, B-4, C-1, D-2. 1955 original Act; renamed PCR in 1976; Atrocities Act 1989; Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, February 2020.
Q3. Which one of the following is true of Article 17 of the Constitution?
- (a) It defines “untouchability” in detail.
- (b) It abolishes untouchability and makes enforcing any disability arising from it an offence punishable by law.
- (c) It applies only to acts of the State.
- (d) It permits State Legislatures to prescribe the punishment for untouchability.
Answer and explanation
(b). Article 17 abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice in any form. It does not define the term, it applies against private persons as well, and under Article 35 only Parliament can prescribe punishment, which it did through the 1955 Act.
Q4. Under the Chhattisgarh Tonahi Pratadna Nivaran Adhiniyam, 2005, which of the following is punishable?
- Identifying a woman as a tonahi by words or signs
- Physically or mentally harassing a person identified as a tonahi
- A baiga claiming to cure a tonahi through jhar-phook or tantra-mantra
Select the correct answer:
- (a) 1 only
- (b) 1 and 2 only
- (c) 2 and 3 only
- (d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer and explanation
(d) 1, 2 and 3. The Act punishes branding someone a tonahi (up to 3 years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine), harassing a person so branded, and the baiga or ojha who claims to control or cure a tonahi by occult means. All three links in the chain of a witch-hunt are covered.
Level 3: Mains Answer Writing
Q1. (60 words) Why was the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 needed despite the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955?
Model answer outline
- PCR Act targeted untouchability practices with light penalties (1–6 months); conviction rates were low.
- Violence continued: murder, rape, arson, land grabs, parading naked, boycott.
- The 1989 Act defined “atrocities”, raised punishments, created Special Courts, barred anticipatory bail and provided relief for victims.
Q2. (150–200 words) Discuss the significance of the 2015 and 2018 amendments to the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Is legislation sufficient to end caste atrocities?
Model answer outline
- Intro: The 1989 Act implements Art 17 and Art 46 by treating caste violence as an aggravated crime.
- 2015: new offences (boycott, manual scavenging, caste abuse in public view), Exclusive Special Courts, 60-day charge sheet, victims’ and witnesses’ rights, presumption of knowledge of caste.
- 2018: after Mahajan (2018) diluted procedure, Section 18A restored immediate FIR and arrest; upheld in Prithvi Raj Chauhan (2020) with a narrow safeguard for clearly false cases.
- Is law enough? No: under-registration, low conviction, delays and social pressure persist. Needed: police sensitisation, witness protection, economic empowerment (land, education), social reform.
- Chhattisgarh angle: Guru Ghasidas’s “Manakhe-manakhe ek samaan” and the Satnami tradition; protective laws for a state with about 12.8% SC and 30.6% ST population (Census 2011); the 2005 anti-Tonahi law shows that state laws also target social evils.
- Conclusion: Law is the floor, not the ceiling; constitutional morality must take root in society.
Quick Revision Table
| Fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| Art 17 | Untouchability abolished; not defined in the Constitution |
| Art 35 | Only Parliament prescribes punishment for Part III offences |
| PCR Act | 1955 (as Untouchability Offences Act); renamed 1976 |
| PoA Act | 1989; in force 30 Jan 1990; Rules 1995 |
| Sec 4 | Neglect by non-SC/ST public servant: 6 months – 1 year |
| Sec 14 | Special Courts (2015: Exclusive Special Courts) |
| Sec 18 | Anticipatory bail barred |
| 2015 amendment | In force 26 Jan 2016; 60-day charge sheet; Chapter IV-A victims’ rights |
| Mahajan | 20 Mar 2018; directions recalled on review, 1 Oct 2019 |
| Sec 18A | 2018; no preliminary inquiry, no prior approval |
| Prithvi Raj Chauhan | 10 Feb 2020; Sec 18A upheld |
| Tonahi Act | Chhattisgarh, 2005; branding a tonahi: up to 3 years RI + fine |
| Chhattisgarh population | ST about 30.6%, SC about 12.8% (Census 2011) |
Key Takeaways
Key Takeaways
- Art 17 abolished untouchability; the PCR Act (1955/1976) punished its practice, and the PoA Act (1989) punished violence and humiliation.
- The 2015 amendment widened offences and made the Act victim-centric; the 2018 amendment (Sec 18A) reversed the Mahajan dilution and was upheld in 2020.
- The Act’s weak point is enforcement: registration, investigation and conviction.
- Chhattisgarh’s Tonahi Pratadna Nivaran Adhiniyam, 2005 is a model state law against a superstition-driven, gendered social evil.
What’s Next
- Right to Information Act — the next page
- Welfare and Development Programmes — schemes for SCs, STs and women
- Social Aspects of Chhattisgarh — caste, tribe and social reform in the state
- Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties — Art 46 and the welfare mandate
Advertisement